2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo what's a girl got to do to get "qualified" to run for President, Bernie?
We New York Democratic party women, the ones who show up at the meetings, work the polls, canvas, and get-out-the-vote want to know just what a woman has to do to get qualified to run for president. Please, explain it to us.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)you've missed the point so completely that you might come back around and hit it eventually.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who perceived this as a sexist remark about qualifications that we are mistaken, and shouldn't worry our pretty little heads.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)though I doubt you'll find comfort in that reassurance.
The prettyness or not of your collective heads isn't a factor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)to this day, no reasonable explanation has been offered for her private email server (used to conduct classified, government business). It was the only email server she used, so either she didn't deal with any classified material via email for 4 years (already proven false) or she broke the law.
It's no more complicated than that. Lying one top of that to the American people further disqualifies her for office of any kind.
Having said that, I would have supported Elizabeth Warren if she would have run for POTUS, so your desire to paint Sanders supporters as misogynist imisguied and uninformed.
Nice try though... 😏
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Hillary: "Oh... about a year ago.." Was that Dukakis in the tank or what?
seattleite
(79 posts)Is dishonest and disgusting.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)adult.
Bernie Sanders graduated from the University of Chicago in the early 60s and worked a variety of jobs (and collected paychecks) throughout the 60s and 70s. He was elected the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981.
Before that, Sanders worked as an aid at a psychiatric hospital, as a pre-school teacher for Head Start, as a property tax researcher for the Vermont Department of Taxes, and for a non-profit called the Bread and Law Task Force.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)electricity.
I got that Polly.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Breaking the glass ceiling is a good cause, but Hillary Clinton isn't exactly the perfect standard-bearer for it. A lawyer whose previous career highlight was being on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, who then moved to New York for the first time in her life and immediately ran for the Senate, would, to put it mildly, not have been elected. There are women like Elizabeth Warren (and, to be even-handed, Michele Bachmann) who made it to Congress and gained national prominence entirely on their own merits. Hillary is not one of those women.
Of course, national prominence is only one part of the equation. There are many people, men and women, whom you and I have never heard of but who are very well qualified to be President. Conversely, if Hillary, with her automatic national prominence as First Lady, had turned out on the campaign trail to be a dimwit, she wouldn't have been elected.
I don't know how much time Bernie Sanders actually spent sleeping on someone else's couch, but unlike you I see no basis for sneering at his having worked at various jobs.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)in Iraq.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq
Sanders supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism. Sanders has supported Israels aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. Sanders supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. And Sanders has stated that he too would use drones.
I am so tired of people talking about voting Sanders or we cheer dead babies.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)oh wait, you don't have any, and you decline to provide them, so..lies lies lies lies then?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)about the way I thought it would go, but I was hoping. Come on SeaB, peel the scales off my eyes with something OTHER than your less than charming words.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to arrive there all by themselves.
I put a stop with my kids when they were relatively young. Lol.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I must say that phrase about a hundred times to my daughter everyday
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Saves tons in arguing. They learned long ago they had better be fortified with facts if they are gonna challenge. So it makes conversation a little easier.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Can you show us please how many are dead as a result of Sanders? We'll wait.
Honduras. Syria. Libya. Egypt. Iraq.
This is Hillary's legacy.
And yet you cite Israel. I find that laughable considering wasn't Hillary just speaking at AIPAC rather recently? Where are Bernie's comments about using nukes in Iran?
I'm so sick of Hillary supporters defending her "We can, he died" bullshit. She is a Neocon Warhawk. Period. Why do you think she's doing arms deals to Saudi Arabia? Wake up!
You want pro-Israel? Here's Hillary's speech from AIPAC a few weeks ago.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)What about Hillary's pro- Israel stance.....
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)and ignore things like this? http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/hillary-clinton-palestinians/
Yeah you're smoking something.
You bitch about drones yet Hillary went even farther with the Patriot Act & voted for it, twice.
Do you REALLY want to do this? We can.
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337864/bernie-sanders-warns-israel-to-curb-occupation-and-stop-indiscriminate-atta/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)There is NOTHING sexist about his comment. He was mimicking what her campaign had decided to scortch the Earth with regarding him: "disqualify and defeat."
It was rhetorical and smart women, whether their heads are pretty or not, know this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for me.
Sanders has been patting women on the head for months. And now? He simply threw another fit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,227 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)but whatevs.
Former BS supporter and NY primary voter pulling the lever for Hillary here. It's about the misogyny for me.
If you don't see it, I suggest that's because you don't want to.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Notice that Bernie didn't say that President Obama, who also has SuperPacs and is a 'corporate' Democrat isn't qualified to be President. He obviously feels it, since he wanted to run a primary against him, but Bernie won't say it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)No matter what they say.
Clinton is a very flawed candidate who would make a terrible President.
So, whenever challenged, it becomes only about HER.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Beowulf
(761 posts)Way beyond the misleading headlines.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Be careful you don't step on any of the bodies she left laying around when you backtrack to the article. Most here don't see them, since they're mostly brown.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)It involves not taking money from the very industries you are being asked by the public to put to heel.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)But he didn't. He said she wasn't qualified. As in the Democratic senator that millions of New Yorkers voted for isn't qualified according to him.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)Because that is basically what he did.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)You would not go around publicizing your obvious ignorance.
Or, perhaps his concepts were too complex for you. Like taking millions in her SuperPac, or supporting Panama.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)With the corporations is a problem then Sanders has this problem.
Joob
(1,065 posts)that Hillary, happened to be apart of. With respect, the morality his campaign and the election is about money in politics.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Joob
(1,065 posts)When you make claims like this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Bernie in the Southern States, didn't it?
Telling New Yorkers the woman they sent to the Senate isn't qualified to run for president is going to go over so well here. Telling Democratic women who actually show up and do the work that their concerns about sexism are misplaced is going to go over even better.
Joob
(1,065 posts)Superpacs? Voting for the war in Iraq? Supporting disastrous* trade agreements, and her
position on the Panama Free Trade Agreement?
Do these things not matter?
Are they lies?
Are they bad, but she's done more good?
Tell me why he wouldn't say that to a man in your opinion at least. Right?
Wouldn't it make a better case for you if you say why it's sexist regarding those remarks?
you can't treat a woman like a man or its mean
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)and then her and her supporters make up cries of sexism. It happened on the gun issue. it happens anytime Hillary gets a sad. They want to pretend they are tough and then whine whenever her record is called out. Cries of sexism are extremely tiring.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But funny thing ... the people who insist on instructing us on when, where and how we should be allowed to point out sexism (or racism) never seem to think it exists THIS time.
"Don't get me wrong," they tell us. "I KNOW that sexism and racism exist and are a problem. But they aren't involved THIS time. I'll tell you when they do come into play. So, in the meantime, just sit down, be quiet and stop making me uncomfortable."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie isn't running because he's against the idea of a woman becoming president. And those of us who support him aren;t doing so because we don't want to see a woman in the Oval Office.
If that was the issue, Bernie wouldn't have the support of millions of women across this country.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And she started this by saying he wasn't qualified.
None of the men he ever ran against had questioned his qualifications.
If any of the other candidates was still in the race and had said that about him, he'd have said that about them.
It had nothing to do with gender.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He can find himself the courage to attack Hillary Rodham Clinton.... but not the men on the other side.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's not running against them in the primaries.
HRC's gender has never been the issue. If it was, he would never have been trying to get Elizabeth Warren to run. Once shje dropped out, Bernie had to run or there would have been no progressive candidates(with corporate money it's impossible for HRC to be anything but a centrist)at all.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She only endorsed ssm in 2013, when it no longer meant anything for her to do so. That's sort of like protesting against the Vietnam War in 1977.
She was never in your corner(other than on trivialities like a few sub-Cabinet appointments, positions that were powerless and irrelevant) in the Nineties, when it mattered.
another
(9 posts)What she refused to say, three times, was that Sanders was qualified. Tricky, but the same as saying he is unqualified. I'd have so much more respect if she would have just have answered "Of course he's qualified, but..."
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...to choose wise and moral advisors who give wise & moral advice.
Hillary, alas, shows she does not have such a capacity:
But they do make a lovely couple, don't they?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Sexist!!!
That Mt.Dew sacrificed to your humor, good job!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)hereforthevoting
(241 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)And I didn't support them when they did run.
Nice try.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Of course I voted for the nominee. But I felt strongly by 2008 that we needed to nominate someone without that particular albatross of a turd vote hanging around their neck. We did, and we won. Perhaps there's even a connection.
But, surprise! This thread isn't about me! (You can start one, if you want, though)
It's about the question you asked regarding Sanders' statement, and I answered it, again, in the context of Sanders's statement.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I supported Kerry in 2004 because I bought the exact same lame beltway conventional wisdom "electability" arguments which are being used to support Hillary.
In retrospect, I should and would have supported Dean.
By 2008 I wasn't going to support anyone who had voted for that thing. Like I said, the posts are there, i can find them if you want.
I know, I'm fascinating and so are my words.
And no, I never supported Biden for anything, in part because he's been an even more enthusiastic proponent of putting drug users in prison, than Hillary has.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Unlike the majority of Bernie supporters on this site who are doing their best to swiftboat Hillary.
Edwards and Kerry were defended and given many passes. No such luxury will ever be afforded to the woman running. You can stick your head in a bubble or make all the excuses in the world for it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it just might be a freaking duck.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-2016-president-momentum-hype-polls-118877
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I happen to think the IWR is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss judgment of a presidential candidate.
I realize one side would much rather talk about shit like "berniebros" all day long, but the actual legislative voting record of the candidate seems a bit more pertinent.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)In June of 2015 Sanders did not think Clinton's vote disqualified her for the Presidency. This is going to get so much play today. And Sanders is going to walk back his statements. I know it will be disappointing. But he's a man of character.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)presented.
I don't think HRC is "not qualified" to be POTUS, although I do think the IWR was a shitty vote and she should have - as many Senators did - known and done better.
But I think Sanders said that in the context of being attacked as "not qualified". I'm not gonna defend the statement, but I don't think it's the "gotcha" some folks do.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)WaPo headline was all it'd take. I'd go off script too if I was told before a speech my opponent said I was disqualified, explicitly. And by the time the news cycle hits Sanders will clarify.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)We can't afford to have a President who goes off all half-cocked because someone told him that somebody was quoted in a newspaper saying something mean about him...
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)So I really don't see that as initiative of how any candidate would govern.
I think he was fed bad info and that headline was very misleading and he finally after two days turned it around and said she was qualified. Much to the disdain of faux Sanders supporters who actually want him to be this completely off kilter candidate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And when you DO fire back, you'd better make sure you have your ammunition and aim straight so you wound your target rather than shooting your own self in the foot and having to spend the next couple of news cycles walking it back.
Regardless what anybody wants, Sanders WAS completely off-kilter on this one.
It's really interesting to me that, no matter WHAT Sanders does, his supporters always blame everyone but him and, even when trying to defend him, always find a way to drag in and try to smear people who have nothing to do with what he did. This isn't about "faux" supporters. It's not about being "fed bad info" or a "misleading" headline. Sanders is responsible for what he says and does and he screwed up. Period.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Neither of them had a Democratic challenger who consistently opposed that travesty of a foreign policy. This time, we have that choice.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)The OP makes the point, quite correctly, that it is time we elect a woman that will do the same!
Are you so opposed to equality that you have a problem with that?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)Response to msanthrope (Original post)
Vilis Veritas This message was self-deleted by its author.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)You probably belong to the wrong political party.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)I look for strength of leadership, integrity and national issues. Those should be the primary talking points. Voting based as a singular self interest tends to be selfish. What do I get out of an election vs the needs of the nation as a whole.
I miss the Democrats of the Kennedy days.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Those are the ONLY requirements listed.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Either you can deal with or you can't but you can not have it both ways.
Don't lob manure, hurry to put on your Sunday best then turn around and complain someone soiled it.
You chose to play in poo, whatcha expect?!
p.s. Hillary doesn't strike me as a delicate flower-type. She has 2 choices. Change her clothes or quit flinging bullcrap. See? Easy!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)So far he's spared your candidate despite the thirteen minutes lying video.
:Bosnian sniper-fire:
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)His preference is pretty clear now.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)making unqualified
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Ms. Warren seems to have the leadership part down pretty good.
How about honesty and integrity? That would help.
Some people think consistently supporting democratic values and civil rights would be a positive move.
How about NOT voting for the Iraq War that she knew was based on lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead people? Heck, she might show a little real regret and sadness over helping to kill those people.
Knee-jerk support for an unfit candidate because of the candidate's gender is a lousy way to run a democracy.
LexVegas
(6,114 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)it's that Hillary's positions, platform and actions have disqualified her. A person is known by their actions and Hillary's actions are ones that make up a person that is unfit to be a Democratic President.
So...not be Hillary Clinton?
That's the only way Hillary is ever going to be qualified to be President. Become someone else that doesn't hold her history, values and positions. A political record is like a painting...you can't ever un-paint a single stroke, every action is a permanent part of the final work...and hers will always be filled with I'm really a stealth Republican "unhappy little trees" (to put a twist on a Bob Ross quote.)
There's just no way Hillary will ever be an acceptable Democratic candidate for the Presidency...just like when Ralph Reed tried to sue (a political stunt, I sincerely doubt he was interested in the job) claiming he was being discriminated against because his application for a job with Planned Parenthood was rejected because he was "unqualified." (By which they meant he's misogynistic bigot.)
That's the kind of "unqualified" Hillary is...the kind where you're not fit to be considered a Democrat if you've spent your entire career trying to destroy and undermine the Democratic party and its values. I daresay that stink is starting to rub off on her supporters.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You insult them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Brilliant.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You ought to consider taking a break.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #68)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to msanthrope (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
mainer
(12,033 posts)That's what a girl's gotta do.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)HughLefty1
(231 posts)Strike 2: Iraq War vote while in Senate
Strike 3: Clinton Foundation/Corporate special interests
Folks can spin it how they want. This has nothing to do with her being a woman.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Vinca
(50,318 posts)It diminishes not only your candidate, but all women.
DebDoo
(319 posts)And Hillary isn't doing it
baldguy
(36,649 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)says devoted feminist, baldguy.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)That reproductive rights are human rights. That one's gender isn't an indication of one's intelligence, abilities, or qualifications. And a woman expressing herself shouldn't be characterized as a shrill, uppity harpy merely for doing so.
The negative caricature of Clinton is a lie which entirely the creation of Republicans and the VRWC, and is entirely a reflection of their raging sexism and blatant misogyny. When the Sanders campaign and their minions pick up that caricature and run with it, then yes, they expose themselves as raging sexists.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)bullshit
baldguy
(36,649 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)is an utterly false profiling of Sanders supporters, including women, as sexists.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)What is it then - sexism once removed?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but don't let it stop you from making moronic blanket statements about the nature of Bernie and his supporters.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)That'd be favorite.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)You agree with her positions, or not. You trust her, or not. You like her, or not.
But one thing for sure, she has a shitload of experience.
think
(11,641 posts)bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)He listed several things that should be balanced against HRC's resume that could bring her suitability into question.
Sec'y Clinton has continually pointed out areas that she feels Bernie doesn't measure up in her eyes, he is doing the same. Both are ratcheting up the rhetoric as the race tightens in the final contests.
It is interesting to hear her question his late movement to the Dem party when she herself shopped around before choosing NY's lax residency requirements as a basis for her Senate run. She had no obvious ties to the state prior to leaving the WH, but she seems to have done a credible job anyway.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Hillary passed that test. Bernie failed. Spectacularly.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I love this instant revisionism and feigned amnesia. No one is falling for it. We were all here in real time.
There were posts on Hillary camps "disqualify" strategy before the Joe interview and before Bernie responded.
Don't be a coward. Own it.
hopeforchange2008
(610 posts)Trump, Cruz et al. aren't qualified either, but it also has nothing to do with gender.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)70 year old woman here; 50+ years as a loyal Democratic voter, supporter and activist. Been through some feminist struggles in my life. Been through agony as our party has deteriorated over the decades into the party of Goldman Sachs and war profiteers.
That's Clinton to me--the Goldman Sachs/war profiteer candidate. I've wanted to see a woman as president a lot longer than you have, I'm sure. But not Hillary Clinton. She's a fraudulent feminist, who is even now starting "triangulation" on abortion, and who has caused untold death and horror to the women of Honduras and the women of Libya, Syria and Iraq, as well as causing poverty, imprisonment and other griefs to millions women here in the U.S. When she said, "We came, we saw, he died!" and laughed, at having gotten Gaddaffi murdered, she showed not one tiny bit of feeling for the chaos, murder and rape, and vast displacement, that was about to occur to millions of women.
She has no judgement--or, rather, her judgement favors death and suffering for others, and the enrichment of billionaires.
To parade "feminism" as you do, in this insinuating way, to try to trap men into saying something that YOU can slime them as "sexist" for, is an insult to me, to the struggles I've been through as a woman, to the struggles my mother went through, and my grandmothers, and my aunts and grand-aunts, and my sisters, and the struggles many men in my family have been through to shed sexism and to be fair and honest in their dealings with women, and to the struggles of all working class women, now and in the past.
An insult. Feminism is not toy! It is not a teasing game! It is not a "gotcha." It is not a word game. It is not a little girl game. It is not a game at all. It is mode of being that serious women undertake, against millennia of cultural conditioning, to learn to be fair to ourselves, to other women, to men, and to all human beings.
Women can be shits. You know that that is true! In private life and in public life. We have no immunity whatever to being wrong, even to being very, very wrong. To accuse someone of sexism for criticizing a woman who has been very, very wrong, is an insult to all feminists, now and in past times.
Hillary Clinton has been very, very wrong on way too many critically important matters to be allowed to pull a cloak of "feminism" over her corruption and warmongering.
That is what you are trying to do. And that is wrong. "Feminism" is getting a bad name in this election for the very reason that idiots and fools are voting for Hillary BECAUSE she's a woman. They are projecting their own legitimate ambition onto her illegitimate goal of using public office merely for its vast power over others and vast amounts of money into her pockets and the pockets of her uber-rich friends. And some of them are being USED, by the likes of David Brock--who destroyed the reputation of an African American lawyer named Anita Hill, and now runs one of Clinton's superpacs!--to smear Bernie Sanders, of all people, as a sexist. This stinks to high heaven. It is a lie! And it is a smear of feminism itself. It degrades feminism. And, believe me, it will cause losses to the feminist cause.
Clinton being a woman does not elevate feminism at all. It associates feminism with corruption and scandals and war. And this kind of kneejerk 'feminism' and little girl games 'feminism' that you are playing in this thread just adds to the disrepute that "feminism" is suffering in this election.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)perceived as such by many women. He didn't criticize her.....he negated her.
Like I've pointed out before..... Bernies campaign refused to address racism telling people instead that Bernie simply wasn't a racist..... and you saw how well that worked in the closed primaries in the southern states. That's where he lost his delegates.
And now he's telling the people of New York that the woman who we sent to the Senate isn't qualified. Yeah it's damned sexist but you go ahead and pretend that it doesn't exist.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)There was nothing remotely sexist about Sanders' statement, and I suspect you fucking well know it. Desperately lying to shore up your shitty, corporate candidate's plummeting campaign is despicable.
Oh, and since you seem determined to play the sexism card, please know that like you and Hillary, I also happen to be in the possession of a vagina. And my honesty. Consider relocating your version the latter.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Standing ovation from this proud 60+ woman who was right there with through every work! Thank you very much!!!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)She's not qualified to be President IF. is what was said. It has nothing to do with the fact she is female. So cut the man hating woman's club bullshit. And no, this mornings meme is not going to turn Democratic women against Sanders.
Either Hillary is a victim or she is tough. You folks need to decide because no one wants an eternal victim to run their country.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...running the most powerful military in the history of the world, and controlling an arsenal of nuclear weapons that could destroy the world, and managing the richest country the world has ever seen.
Victim won't do. Nor will queen. Nor will 'inherited' right to 'the throne.' Nor will mere ambition for power unaccompanied by judgement, wisdom and compassion. Hillary the victim? Right. I think we women have a lot of work to do to help our sisters shed the utterly false illusion--that some of us have-- that Hillary Clinton is a victim. This is a highly contrived and orchestrated brainwashing targeting Bernie Sanders because he threatens increasingly to stand in the way of Clinton's service to her transglobal corporate donors.
This contrived and orchestrated brainwashing has been going on for some time, and I am goddamned sick of it. It is ludicrous. It is Stalinist in its mind-boggling "Big Brother" repetitiveness. And it is wrong. It treats women like children! We are so impressionable. We are so emotional. We identify with all of Clinton's troubles as a woman. We should put her in charge of the nukes because we feel for her as a woman. What rot!
Give me an honest man ANY DAY compared to this shuckin jive! OR woman. Give me an honest SOMEBODY who doesn't hide behind all these masks, meanwhile plotting her vengeance against leftists, and how she's going to finally gift Wall Street with the Social Security fund.
Enough! No more masks! I want an honest PERSON in the White House! And one who will start immediately to save our dying planet. And that person is NOT Hillary Clinton!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)How many people do you know who've turned $1000 into $100,000 on a stock tip?
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940330&slug=1902853
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)You know, just sayin'.
randr
(12,417 posts)That should be the only qualification for winning office.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Or lack there of.
Corruption and incompetence are not determined by chromosome arrangement.
Your post is one of the stupidest I've read in a long time.
GIRLS are children. WOMEN are adults. Your implying people who do not want Hillary back in the White House because she is a GIRL misses every legitimate issue raised, and shows why her supporters are seen as tone deaf to real world problems.
Which is why no one want her in the first place.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Elizabeth Warren is perfectly qualified to to be president, sadly she doesn't want to run. I can think of a number of women who would have been qualified over the years, so I don't see the sexism you seem to be implying (though I do not deny some people have sexist objections to HRC and women in general, and I condemn such people without reservation).
My criteria, however, is the same for men and women:
1) Don't take money from skeevy people, then pretend (nay INSIST) "It ain't no thing".
2) Be consistent. Nothing wrong with "evolving" on an issue, as long as you admit you were wrong and/or don't pretend you were always a champion of people you didn't champion.
3) Do NOT, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do NOT associate with war criminals and/or brag about the association.
4) Never triangulate.
5) Oppose the death penalty.
6) Never believe anything a Republican tells you, especially when you do, and then try to blame them for the consequences of your decision to believe them.
That's just a start. I can come up with quite a few more when I have more time.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That she is clearly more qualified than he is. Having been Secretary of State she has more varied experience
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Experience is more than just being something
treestar
(82,383 posts)Experience happens when you learn from your mistakes. And these are opinions too Having a different opinion on a vote in congress does not make anyone less qualified. I was against the Iraq war. So I am more qualified than Hillary? Absurd.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)She wants to get involved in Syria, she destabilized Libya
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Rather than for big business and filling your own coffers. Not selling favors for donations to yourself. Not being untrustworthy Way too late for Hillary.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)aren't things I think that most democrats in the electorate support.
Sen. Sanders remarks don't offend me at all, and seem pretty fair considering what the Clinton campaign was saying about him.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Calling full grown woman girls is denigrating. Anyone woman over 18 is not a girl! A girl is a child not someone capable of doing all the hard work you state.
And how about you stop being a sexist and accept that a WOMAN can be President if she is has the support of the people who will vote for president in a national election!!
Lastly, instead of posting silly question to "Bernie" why don't you tell us why the candidate you support should be President!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)
And I young lady am NOT a girl. I have worked hard my whole life for women's right, organized Peace marches and protested the attempt to overturn Roe v Wade. In addition I have suffered real sexism at work and in public so save your attempt to "put me in my place" with your four word response!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Use real words that people can understand.
ms liberty
(8,609 posts)Meaning, not text below the title line. Also can be n/t. Another is eom, end of message.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Now I won't be so silly. I thought maybe Not True, or No Time...
Now I can use it when I just have a Title Line - Thank you!!
ms liberty
(8,609 posts)We used to have a glossary, but this, the newest version of DU doesn't have it. Welcome to DU!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)After that, you talk about your campaign and what you'll do for the country. You do not continue to smear your opponents record with untruths, like Chelsea did out there....there is just a laundry list now, to answer this question. It's truly sad. Her behavior was much the same in the WH, much was written about her reactionary behavior, and no control of her temper.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)But that's the same for men.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Though, I do think, that "unfit" would have been a more apt word.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)would be victimhood.
How nice to find I did not misjudge the
character of her campaign/ers, but
then it was just too obvious.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)How about not making bad political decisions, and then try to embrace a president she used the same smear tactics against 8 years ago?
Hillary being disqualified to be president is not sexist.
Elisabeth Warren is far better as candidate.
Unless you would rather choose Sarah Palin over Bernie Sanders.
One could ask the same on behalf of Bernei Sanders:
"What's a Jewish agnostic whose parents surviced Holocaust have to do to get 'qualified' as president?"
Playind identity politics is a bad choice in the long run. It might work in the short run if ones access to information is limited, but not in the long run.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)I sure wish the great feminist Hillary would stop moving to the right on abortion rights.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Is Warren to liberal for your moderate tastes?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)Are women even mortal?
The reasons have been laid bare, and it has zero to do with being a woman, and a lot to do with being the high priestess of Goldman Sachs.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...but you already knew that.
iwannaknow
(210 posts)She is disqualified for taking so much special interest money, not because she is female.
TheBlackAdder
(28,227 posts).
Then, head over to Rutgers-Eagleton's Center for American Women and Politics and do some research. The only university research center that specializes in women and politics.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/
Hint, your OP damages a female candidate by up to 5% at the polls. If you do research above, you'll find the answer why.
Also, just because Sheryl Sandberg uses it, her "Lean In" premise is skewed towards white upper-class. You must temper it with the critique by Bell Hooks. http://www.thefeministwire.com/2013/10/17973/
.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)yes there are disparities and I remember when the pay was .69 cents back in the early 80's and proudly wore that button and advocated for equal pay.